“Why are imaginary people so stupid?” doesn’t strike me as all that fair.
Reality John. Our brains do know, at least my brain does know for a fact, that there was no vote needed by the UNSC to determine that Iraq was not in compliance. SH was in compliance, even cooperating proactively a month prior to the start of war, so no vote needed John. That is a fact.
I have never seen Bush explain that he had to kick the inspectors out and start a war because Iraq was ‘technically’ in violation of 1441. You don’t say Bush said that but it on a factual basis it is a moot point.
It is a fact that Iraq complied with 1441. It is a fact that Bush disagreed. Bush’s dissagreement does not change or diminish the fact that Iraq complied with 1441.
As an avid anti-Iraq war writer here, I still don’t see why you want Bush’s biased opinion to have even the slightest sign of merit in determining whether Iraq complied ‘technically’ with 1441. Sorry your stated position makes no sense coming from one opposed to the war.
If one supports Bush’s decision to kick inspectors out because Bush believes that SH violated Bush’s technical understanding of 1441, that is fair but I would expect to hear that from a Bush defender.
But Bush defenders such as Adaher like to say that SH did not comply with UnSC demands do Bush was correct to invade.
That pro-war version citing Iraq’s non-compliance with 1441 on anything is a flagrant falsehood that enjoys a lot of belief.
That is problematic specifically when even anti-war folks believe it and repeat it too.
You won’t even answer a question I posed at least half a dozen times. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones; you have no standing whatsoever to complain about people not being responsive.
Dude, I’m not normally on the side of self medication but you need to find some, meds that is, pronto.
He hasn’t mentioned what the psychotherapist wife thinks. But if he has the guts to show her everything he posts online, I think she’ll recommend some meds.
I think she is already giving him shock treatments, though she might want to consider upping the voltage…
220, 221. Whatever it takes.
That would make him the Scarecrow. If he only had a brain…
My point was that Gyrate answered a ‘fair’ question and it was a question that availed itself to an objective answer.
Are we comparing my fair question to your leading question? Or were you thinking of something else, because I did offer to answer this question once we got past that misleading nature of the complaints contained within it>
If this thread is about my posting, right now I am giving you the true picture of my posting.
I will answer or attempt to answer the question again after explaining once again that my world view on the run-up to the invasion of Iraq is not as narrow as you claim. Your view in my opinion is much narrower than mine and here is why.
I base that upon the fact that most Americans in October 2002 broadly believed that Saddam Hussein was in violation of international law because of his failure to comply on the WMD issue and he should have been confronted on that. Your opinion has been that Iraq being in violation of international law has no bearing on, or justifies in any way, the US Congress giving Bush the authority to use military force if Iraq did not allow a return of inspectors at anytime soon.
Given that most Americans in October 2002 were supportive of Bush confronting Iraq on the WMD issue because there were some unknowns about the WMD issue because inspectors had been gone for four years. There was a certain amount of legitimacy to being concerned about WMD in Iraq ending up in the wrong hands in a post 9/11 world. You reject anyone who suggest the legitimacy of confronting Iraq when it was in violation of international law.
Now, we move to what we knew in March 2003 after about four months of Saddam Hussein cooperating with UN inspectors. My narrow view as you suggest is that Iraq at that time ‘was in fact’ in compliance with international law at least in regard to proactive cooperation on UN Res 1441.
That is not small potatoes as some here seek to call it.
The authorization to use force against Iraq was passed when Iraq was in violation of international law, but because of language in UN Res 1441, and it becoming the controlling document of inspections, Iraq, after December 2002 was NOT in violation of international law.
So Bush decided to invade Iraq when and only when Iraq was ‘in compliance with international law’.
That is not a popular view because the truth about Iraq’s cooperation in the first three months of 2003 has not been highly reported or publicized. That is because nobody wants to. Bush/Iraq invasion supporters don’t want it known that Iraq cooperated with UN inspectors.
And for other reasons many on the left/libertarian-ish anti-war Americans who opposed the war and the vote in October 2002, do not want to hear about Iraq’s cooperation either.
I would like to have that lack of interest and lack of regard for the fact that Iraq was not in violation of international law in March 2003 when Bush decided to invade Iraq. But there was justification to authorize force against Iraq at a time when Iraq was in violation of international law.
Why do I repeat some of these points you ask? Because the major points are facts, and the arguments against them, such as Mace did on this thread are not based upon facts.
Check the facts. That is all I ask.
Is it a fact that Iraq was in violation of international law in September/October 2002? It is a fact that Iraq was in compliance with international law because of proactive cooperation according to Hans Blix in March 2003 within the demands of UN Resolution 1441.
It’s not a narrow view at all in 2002 when Congress made the vote you deplore Ravenman. And I will grant you that my view on March 2003 cooperation is not a popular view, but it is not a narrow view.
I had hoped there were some thoughtful people here who would discuss it.
That is part of why, Ravenman.
I could while away the hours,
Conferring’ with the flowers,
Consultin’ with the rain.
And my head I’d be scratchin’
While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
If I only had a brain.
Nah. You just want people to accept your re-writing of history and we are not inclined to do that for you.
You spent an enormous amount of text pretending that Bush wandered off with the Authorization to Use Military Force in his pocket and just launched the war all on his own, as if the large number of Democratic congresscritters bore no responsibility for handing him that document with no serious strings and as if they were helpless to do anything to stop him and had no obligation to raise their concerns when he did finally go off on his little adventure.
The reality, that you always deny or avoid addressing, is that as late as March 2003, few, if any, of those congresscritters had spoken out that the AUMF was going to be invoked wrongly. Senator Clinton was famously besieged by protesters against the upcoming war, responding only “I admire your willingness to speak out on behalf of women and children in Iraq,” she said. “The only way to change this is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I don’t think he will. We are in a very difficult position right now. I’d love to agree with you, but I can’t.” and "I am the senator from New York," she said, "and I will not put people’s security at risk."By March, 2003, no person with access to any reliable news outlet, still had a reason to believe that Hussein still had weapons of mass destruction, yet Clinton was still going on about “not trusting” Hussein instead of demanding better information from GWB before he launched his war.
Kerry was notoriously silent throughout the spring of 2003.
They did not have to be. Ted Kennedy came out against the invasion. John Conyers, Marcy Kaptur, and James McDermott came out against the war. The majority of Democrats, however, either followed Clinton’s hawk stance or Kerry’s silent one.
Had you only said that GWB got the war he wanted, you would have been correct. When you overstated, (and stated over, and over, and over, . . . ), that GWB single-handedly launched his war and that there was no way to oppose him, you were simply running off into your imagination. And the opposition to your fantasies is what prompted so many posters–including most who opposed the war at the time, (unlike you who thought the AUMF was just dandy in October)–to respond to your fantasies with disdain.
Hey, NotfooledbyW! Is this “person” a “friend” of yours?
And yet you never answered mine. Typical.
We shall see.
I didn’t proof this. Got to go. Apologize fit typos etc,
I get that you’re trying to “correct” “facts,” and I will not once again delve into the details. Suffice it to say that your version of the facts is disputed almost universally here, by a variety of posters – most of whom were and are quite vocal in stating that the Iraq war was a mistake or a violation of international law.
And yet, every few hours (with the exception of that one-month period where the mods told you to shut up about this topic), you post something else that is generally a long-winded attempt to convince everyone that opposed the Iraq war that they are wrong on something. You are continually banging your head up against a wall, for no good purpose that I can determine.
I’m interested in why you’re doing that; why you want to discuss something that has been beaten deader than a rotten horse, again and again, day after day, hour after hour. I’m not asking about the “facts” of the Iraq war, I want to know why you are so obsessed with this topic that you return to it like a moth to a candle, and also why you bring it up even in response to posts that aren’t about Iraq at all.
I’m pretty sure I’m on record as supporting the Iraq invasion in the early days.
I got soured on it by and by when it became clear just how incompetently the operation was run.
As more of an attempt to explain to Ravenman why a discussion focused heartily on the success of the UN inspections and the diplomatic means prior to the US invasion of Iraq, perhaps your comment can shed some much needed light. But first I will explain that my motivation is not connected to the “we told you so” attitude that is prevalent on this forum. To me that is the narrow view because when all of us made decisions in real time in 2002 and 2003 regarding Iraq we were limited to what was known and what was fed to us through a seemingly war hawkish news media.
If I cite you, Ravenman and myself as examples of three divergent viewpoints on Iraq, we have one who opposed, I believe, voting to authorize war as passed in October 2002 and let’s us know that was the only correct and moral view at the time.
I am in between you and Ravenman where I supported the October 2002 JAUF yes vote, but did not support any excuse for war after January 2003, because it was obvious that UN inspections were working.
And thirdly I assume that you supported Congress’s authorization for war if necessary and you may have believed Bush telling everybody that Iraq did not cooperate with the inspection process, so he had no choice but to end inspections and invade Iraq.
So why does it matter yet today?
What really happened during those three months if peaceful/peacemaking discussions has never been brought front and center in any if the documentaries about Iraq, including Rachel Maddow’s ten yr. anniversary version.
I see that as a travesty for all Americans no matter their support or opposition, because it has allowed a rewrite of history by omission that should not exist where truth and facts and a proper historical record should openly exist. And when our country is responsible for sending our military into Iraq in a war of aggression we should be informed of ALL that transpired into what got it started.
UN inspections and the fact that they worked tremendously well have been swept under the rug to a point if Who Cares,
I think it is wrong and interest should be aroused by all who claim they do not support the US invasion of Iraq.
No they weren’t.
I don’t know. You’re the one who won’t shut up about it.
OK, now that you’ve done that here, can you go somewhere else to spread your critical message? I’m sure every major TV network and book publisher will be standing in line to get your views out to the public.
I’ll need to stick around to make sure you don’t go around saying stuff like Iraq didnt comply with 1441 because Bush and Drunky Smurf said they didn’t?